DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 2: Treaty Rights and Forest Service Responsibilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 2: Treaty Rights and Forest Service Responsibilities Section 2: Treaty Rights and Forest Service Responsibilities Implement Forest Service programs and activities honoring Indian treaty rights and fulfill legally mandated trust responsibilities to the extent that they are determined applicable to National Forest System lands (American Indian/Alaska Native Policy (FSM 1563)). • Visit our tribal neighbors. Learn about their treaties and rights. • Talk with them about areas of mutual interest. • [Endeavor to] reconcile Indian needs and claims with the principles of good management, multiple use, and national forest laws and policies. • Attempt reasonable accommodation without compromising the legal positions of either the Indians or the Federal Government. • Work together to develop ways to accomplish the goals of this policy. This section includes information about— • Treaties • Treaty Rights on National Forest System Lands • Characteristics of Treaty Rights – Grazing Rights – Hunting and Fishing Rights – Gathering Rights and Interests – Water Rights – Alaska Native Subsistence Rights • Trust Responsibilities • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consultation • Cooperation in Management The United States obtained the vast majority of public domain land in the lower 48 States by signing treaties with Indian tribes. Approximately 60 of these tribes have treaties that contain some rights to off-reservation lands and resources. Other laws define Alaska Natives’ rights to subsist from the natural resources of the land (described in this section under Alaska Native Subsistence Rights). Treaties are Federal law. The Federal/Tribal relationship is one often described as a guardian/ward relationship. Under differing laws, different departments, executive branches of government, and agencies have different responsibilities. The Secretary of the Interior, for example, has specific trust-holding responsi- bilities not delegated to any other department or agency. The Federal trust 41 responsibility is based upon a “corpus” or “holding” of assets such as land. The Department of the Interior’s Office of American Indian Trust, has defined the trust relationship to include the protection of treaty rights. This will be discussed further in this section. Alaska Native Rights In the lower 48 states, the United States used treaties to create public on Federal Lands domain land and reserve certain use rights to tribes. There was no similar process that applies to the lands Alaska Natives have inhabited for thousands of years. Alaska political leaders succeeded in achieving statehood, but aboriginal land claims were not resolved as Alaska became the 49th state. Statehood brought momentum to the Native land claims movement, which basically asserted that the United States had not justly compensated Alaska Natives for the lands taken at the time of the Treaty with Russia. “The use and occupancy title of the Tlingit and Haida Indians was not extinguished by the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, nor were any rights held by these Indians arising out of their occupancy and use extinguished by the treaty. The negotiations leading up to the treaty and the language of the treaty itself show that it was not intended to have any effect on the rights of the Indians in Alaska, and it was left to the United States to decide how it was going to deal with the native Indian population of the newly acquired territory.” In the early 1960’s, the State of Alaska began to select public domain land that would be placed under State jurisdiction. This created a direct threat to the Alaska Natives’ aboriginal land rights and Native leaders organized to protest the selections the state was making and sought congressional settlement. Native representatives testified at numerous hearings and mounted a vast lobbying and education effort until finally, in 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This significant legislation was unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and complexity. Even though ANCSA articulated new public land law, it remained silent on the nature, extent, or definition of Alaska Native tribal governments. Thus, when the Forest Service considers the relationship between Alaska Natives and the Federal Government in its proposed actions and planning, we must be conscious not only of present legislation, but of past legislation, policies, and legal principles which culminated in the present Federal policies. Such policies continue to evolve, further defining and determining the nature of this unique legal relationship between Alaska Natives and the Federal Government. ANCSA in some respects was a treaty—a law—with the U.S. Government. In return for a grant of title to about 44 million acres and other benefits for Alaska Natives, the act extinguished aboriginal title to the remaining lands Alaska Natives traditionally used and occupied. However, Congress wrote the act to deliberately exclude traditional features of treaties. • It excluded reserves of land for exclusive use and occupancy, termed “reservations,” in the lower 48. 42 • It made provisions for addressing the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or their delegated trust responsibilities for Indian-owned land and resources. • Alaska Natives were not signatories to the act; American Indians were signatories to treaty documents negotiated by the U.S. before 1871. The resolution of ANCSA provided a battleground for two dissimilar value systems—that of the Alaska Natives, whose tribal perspective viewed land and its resources as something of value to be passed on to future genera- tions of tribal members, and that of Congress, which viewed Native corpo- ration land as an asset that could be sold or even lost in risky commercial ventures. Nonetheless, ANCSA provided for the grant of title to about 44 million acres to the Alaska Natives and provided for continued efforts to protect Native subsistence rights (Conference Committee Report). ANCSA is the product of two Federal Indian policies: • The Termination Policy of the 1950’s • The Self-Determination Policy of today While the language speaks of self-determination, the overall goal of ANCSA was termination and assimilation. Alaska Natives were given full control over their land and money; however, Congress assigned control not to tribal governments, but to State-chartered Native corporations. Federal courts generally support the special political status of Alaska Natives. However, complexity, ambiguity, and contradiction have not been eliminated from Indian law and policy. Even where policy seems consistent, there is still room for dispute. Given the ambiguity of the record and political resistance to claims of “sovereignty” in Alaska, Alaska Natives have turned to practical political and social actions to strengthen their special status and cultural identi- ties. Alaska Natives’ special status is ultimately a political question, not a legal one, in which status depends less on what Federal policymakers say, than on what Alaska Natives choose to do. The Secretary of the Interior has defined which Alaska Tribes and groups are Federally Recognized. A full listing of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes is found in the Federal Register/Vol 51, No. 226/Wednesday, November 13, 1996/Notices (pp 58211–58216). A copy may also be found in Appendix C. Treaties Indian land title was recognized in varying ways when European countries arrived in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. Government negotiated Treaty Language treaties with Indian tribal governments for western expansion, to keep the peace, and to add new states to the Union. American Indian treaties were not a grant of rights to tribes, but rather a grant of rights from tribes, with the Indian tribes retaining all of the powers and rights of sovereign nations granted by the tribe pursuant to the treaty or taken from the tribe by Federal statute. Extinguishing Indian title made it possible for the U.S. Government to govern former Indian lands. 43 Treaties between the United States and Indian tribes involving grants or cessions of land were not ordinary land transactions where the seller conveys all rights to the property sold to the buyer. In many treaties, how- ever, Indians ceded (relinquished) title and interests to the United States Government, while reserving certain use rights to themselves. The term “ceded lands” has at least two definitions. This term was first used in the Treaty of the Wyandots, 1789. Since that time, many treaties have referred to land cessions made by tribes to the United States. Most Federal agencies and Indian tribes prefer to use “ceded lands” to describe areas that a tribe did “cede, relinquish, and convey to the U.S. all their right, title, and interest in the lands and country occupied by them” … at treaty sign- ing or when reservations were established. This does not mean that tribes ceded all their rights. Many tribes reserved rights on ceded lands—there are places where rights remain intact and protected. The U.S Court of Claims qualified the legal definition of ceded lands in 1978 when it said that, in effect, “only lands actually owned by a tribe could be ceded to the U.S.” Sixty tribes negotiated and reserved their treaty rights on the public do- main. After tribal representatives and U.S. officials signed treaties, they were then ratified by the U.S. Senate. Although some treaties were signed by unauthorized people, the treaty rights and provisions within them remained a matter of law. Treaty provisions in the lower 48 States varied depending on the lands and the tribal groups involved in the negotiations. The Supreme Court has found that treaties are superior to State laws, including State constitutions, and are accorded equal status with Federal statutes. Treaty Rights on The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) provides that treaties National Forest are equal to Federal laws and are binding on states as the supreme law of System Lands the land. From 1777 to 1871, United States relations with individual Indian Nations were conducted through treaty negotiations. These “contracts among nations” created unique sets of rights for the benefit of each of the treaty- making tribes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Lands and General Natural Resource Issues
    Research Division, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT Public Lands and General Natural Resource Issues April 2016 Many of the State agency responsibilities related to natural resources are housed in the State Department TABLE OF CONTENTS of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Other State agencies with responsibilities for natural Agriculture ........................................... 1 resources and related issues include Nevada’s State Overview of Agriculture in Nevada............. 1 Department of Agriculture (NDA), the Commission on Mineral Resources (through its Division of Mineral Resources ................................... 3 Minerals), and Nevada’s Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Miscellaneous Natural Resources Topics ........ 5 Drought ............................................. 5 More than 85 percent of Nevada’s land area is owned and administered by the federal government. In Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants ............ 6 some rural counties, the federal government controls more than 90 percent of the land. As a result, Wildland Fires ..................................... 7 federal laws, regulations, and policies play a very Public Lands .......................................... 7 important role in the management of vast areas of the State’s natural resources and significantly influence Public Land Acts .................................. 8 local public policy. Off-Highway Vehicles ............................. 12 AGRICULTURE Wildlife and Wild Horses ......................... 14 Although agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • The Obsolete Theory of Crown Unity in Canada and Its Relevance to Indigenous Claims
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2015 The Obsolete Theory of Crown Unity in Canada and Its Relevance to Indigenous Claims Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: (2015) 20 Review of Constitutional Studies 1-29 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Repository Citation McNeil, Kent, "The Obsolete Theory of Crown Unity in Canada and Its Relevance to Indigenous Claims" (2015). Articles & Book Chapters. 2777. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/2777 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Obsolete Theory of Crown Unity in Canada and Its Relevance to Indigenous Claims Kent McNeil* This article examines the application of the L'uteur de cet article examine l'pplication theory ofthe unity ofthe Crown in Canada in de la theorie de Punite de la Couronne the context of Indigenous peoples. It reveals a au Canada dans le contexte des peuples consistent retreat by the courtsfrom acceptance autochtones. I rivile une retraite constante of the theory in the late nineteenth century to de la part des tribunaux de lipprobation de rejection ofit in the secondhalfofthe twentieth la theorie a la fin du dix-neuvidme sicle a century. This evolution ofthe theory' relevance, son rejet au cours de la deuxidme moiti du it is argued, is consistent with Canada federal vingtidme sidcle.
    [Show full text]
  • BROKEN PROMISES: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS BROKEN PROMISES: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business DECEMBER 2018 Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chairperson directed to: Debo P. Adegbile Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or Washington, DC 20425 national origin, or in the administration of justice. (202) 376-8128 voice • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information TTY Relay: 711 in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, www.usccr.gov religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlands of the United States
    EXHIBIT B Wildlands of the United States A report by the Pacific Biodiversity Institute for the Pew Wilderness Center, 2001 CREDITS This report details the results of Pacific Biodiversity Institute’s inventory of federal and state roadless areas in the United States. This report and the work documented herein were commissioned by the Pew Wilderness Center. Authors Jason Karl, Peter Morrison, Lindsey Swope, Kathleen Ackley Acknowledgements We would like to thank Leyla Arsan, Hillary Knack, Ben Sabold and Chad McCabe for their help in this project. We are grateful for John McComb’s constructive feedback throughout this project. We also appreciate Kirsten Harma, Teresa Allen, and Dr. Roger Morrison for their edits to this report. On the Cover Roadless area adjacent to the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness, Washington. Photo by Peter Morrison. Pacific Biodiversity Institute P. O. Box 298 Winthrop, WA 98862 509.996.2490 (Phone) 509.996.3778 (Fax) [email protected] www.pacificbio.org 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and Objectives Wilderness and wildlands are a very important part of the American heritage. In many respects our interaction with wilderness has shaped our nation and influenced the character of our citizens. Our remaining wildlands now provide important refuges for animal and plant species that were once common, but have not faired well with the rapid development of our nation. These wildlands also provide immense recreational opportunities and places where people can find refuge and tranquility from this troubled world. Despite the importance of America’s wildlands to the people of our nation, the remaining wildlands have never been mapped across ownerships throughout the United States in a consistent manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998''
    SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT (Public Law 105-263) “As Amended” Updated to Consolidate All Revisions Enacted Through December 19, 20141 (Endnotes have been added for informational purposes.) PUBLIC LAW 105-263 105th Congress An Act To provide for the orderly disposal of certain Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the State of Nevada. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998''. SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.-- The Congress finds the following: (1) The Bureau of Land Management has extensive land ownership in small and large parcels interspersed with or adjacent to private land in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, making many of these parcels difficult to manage and more appropriate for disposal. (2) In order to promote responsible and orderly development in the Las Vegas Valley, certain of those Federal lands should be sold by the Federal Government based on recommendations made by local government and the public. (3) The Las Vegas metropolitan area is the fastest growing urban area in the United States, which is causing significant impacts upon the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, which surround the Las Vegas Valley. (b) Purpose. --The purpose of this Act is to provide for the orderly disposal of certain Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the State of Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaties in Canada, Education Guide
    TREATIES IN CANADA EDUCATION GUIDE A project of Cover: Map showing treaties in Ontario, c. 1931 (courtesy of Archives of Ontario/I0022329/J.L. Morris Fonds/F 1060-1-0-51, Folder 1, Map 14, 13356 [63/5]). Chiefs of the Six Nations reading Wampum belts, 1871 (courtesy of Library and Archives Canada/Electric Studio/C-085137). “The words ‘as long as the sun shines, as long as the waters flow Message to teachers Activities and discussions related to Indigenous peoples’ Key Terms and Definitions downhill, and as long as the grass grows green’ can be found in many history in Canada may evoke an emotional response from treaties after the 1613 treaty. It set a relationship of equity and peace.” some students. The subject of treaties can bring out strong Aboriginal Title: the inherent right of Indigenous peoples — Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation’s Turtle Clan opinions and feelings, as it includes two worldviews. It is to land or territory; the Canadian legal system recognizes title as a collective right to the use of and jurisdiction over critical to acknowledge that Indigenous worldviews and a group’s ancestral lands Table of Contents Introduction: understandings of relationships have continually been marginalized. This does not make them less valid, and Assimilation: the process by which a person or persons Introduction: Treaties between Treaties between Canada and Indigenous peoples acquire the social and psychological characteristics of another Canada and Indigenous peoples 2 students need to understand why different peoples in Canada group; to cause a person or group to become part of a Beginning in the early 1600s, the British Crown (later the Government of Canada) entered into might have different outlooks and interpretations of treaties.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Alaska Land Ownership
    Alaska State Land History and Federal Land Issues for Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas August 2013 Dick Mylius Retired from Alaska Department of Natural Resources Presentation Objective • To provide Historical Background regarding federal, state and Native lands for the Summit • To provide information on land entitlements and land status • To advance a few recommendations for consideration Alaska’s Relationship to the Federal Government on Land Issues is Unique • Amount of Federal Land – Most acreage of federal land of any state – 60% of state - only Nevada (88%); Utah (68%); Idaho (65%) have higher percentage – Large percentage in Conservation Systems – ANILCA created rules unique to Alaska • ANCSA created unique relationship between federal and Native land interests - vibrant Native communities and culture - not reservations, not “Trust” lands Relationship is Unique … • Huge Acreage of State Land – Created huge, unique land transfer obligations – more state land than all other states combined – Other Western states only received “Trust” lands and were mostly “in place” – Alaska was allowed to select which federal lands it wanted, with limitations – Alaska had 25 + 10 years to exercise its selection rights – Alaska deals with Federal agencies as regulators of state lands (EPA, ACoE, etc) Presentation Outline • State Land History – Native use and occupancy – Russian ownership – Federal ownership – Statehood (including navigable waters) – Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act – Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Dakota, Nakota, Lakota Life South Dakota State Historical Society Education Kit Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Goals and Materials 2 Photograph List 3-4 Books and CDs in the Kit 5 Music CDs and DVD in the Kit 6 Erasing Native American Stereotypes 7-8 Teacher Resource 9-18 Bibliography 19-20 Worksheets Word Find 21 Word Find Key 22 Crossword Puzzle 23 Crossword Puzzle Key 24 Word Scramble 25 Word Scramble Key 26 Activities Reading an Object 27-28 Object Identification Sheet 29-35 Trek to Wind Cave 36-37 South Dakota Coordinates Worksheet 38 Comparing Families 39-40 Comparing Families Worksheet 41 What Does the Photo Show? 42-43 Beadwork Designs 44-45 Beadwork Designs Worksheet 46 Beadwork Designs Key 47 Lazy Stitch Beading 48-49 Lazy Stitch Beading Instructions / Pattern 50-51 What Do You Get From a Buffalo? 52-53 Buffalo Uses Worksheet 54 Pin the Parts on the Buffalo 55-56 Pin the Parts on the Buffalo Worksheet 57 Pin the Parts on the Buffalo Worksheet Key 58 Pin the Parts on the Buffalo Outline & Key 59-60 Create a Ledger Drawing 61-62 Examples of Ledger Drawings 63-66 Traditional & Contemporary: Comparing Drum 67-68 Groups Come Dance With Us: Identifying Powwow Dance 69-72 Styles 1 Dakota, Nakota, Lakota Life South Dakota State Historical Society Education Kit Goals and Materials Goals Kit users will: explore the history and culture of the Dakota, Nakota and Lakota people understand the changes brought about by the shift from buffalo hunting to reservation life appreciate that the Dakota, Nakota and Lakota culture is not something
    [Show full text]
  • A Vast Liquidation of Public Lands Is Underway in Alaska by Jenny Rowland-Shea, Sung Chung, Sally Hardin, Matt Lee-Ashley, and Kate Kelly September 10, 2019
    A Vast Liquidation of Public Lands Is Underway in Alaska By Jenny Rowland-Shea, Sung Chung, Sally Hardin, Matt Lee-Ashley, and Kate Kelly September 10, 2019 The Trump administration is quietly leading one of the largest liquidations of America’s public lands since the late 19th century. If fully implemented, this effort could result in the transfer, sale, or private exploitation of more than 28.3 million acres of public lands in Alaska, including old-growth forests, subsistence hunt- ing areas for Alaska Native communities, habitats for polar bears, salmon spawn- ing streams, and other backcountry areas.1 It would affect millions of acres in the Tongass National Forest and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge alone. The work to liquidate national public lands is a shortsighted and inadequate response to the state of Alaska’s worsening budget crisis, a result of the state’s over- dependence on revenues from oil drilling. As the Alaska Oil and Gas Association notes on its website, “Alaska is the only state in the Union that is so dependent on one industry to fund its government services.”2 Since 1977, oil revenues have accounted for an average of 85 percent of the state’s annual budget. Recently, however, the production and profitability of Alaska oil fields have been in steep decline, causing the state’s collection of oil and gas production taxes to fall from nearly $6.9 billion in 2008 to $806 million in 2018.3 For the past eight years, Alaska’s elected officials have struggled to find the resources to pay for emergency responders, schools, and other basic services for residents.4 In fact, the state faced a budget deficit of $2.5 billion going into fiscal year 2019.5 This growing budget crisis is presenting Alaska with one of its most consequential choices since voting to become a state in 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Treaty Rights: a Critical Analysis of a Sport Organization’S Perspective
    CONSERVATION AND TREATY RIGHTS CONSERVATION AND TREATY RIGHTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A SPORT ORGANIZATION’S PERSPECTIVE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ HUNTING AND FISHING BY: NICK MARTINO, B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Sociology McMaster University © Copyright by Nick Martino, September 2016 McMaster University MASTER OF ARTS (2016) Hamilton, Ontario (Sociology) TITLE: Conservation and Treaty Rights: A Critical Analysis of a Sport Organization’s Perspective on Indigenous Peoples’ Hunting and Fishing AUTHOR: Nick Martino, B.A. (Trent University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Jeffrey S. Denis NUMBER OF PAGES: x, 120 ii Lay Abstract The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) is an influential organization that has criticized Indigenous peoples’ treaty hunting and fishing rights and land claims for allegedly threatening conservation, recreational opportunities, and the outdoor economy. This thesis analyzes and compares the views surrounding treaty rights between the OFAH leadership and ordinary hunters and fishers inside and outside the organization. Interviews with 20 (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) respondents and a review of the OFAH’s official sources showed that OFAH leaders and 55% of the respondents expressed feelings of concern, resentment, and opposition. Although OFAH leaders and 45% of the respondents displayed limited degrees of support for treaty rights, the general pattern showed how they drew on similar arguments based on equality, fairness, and a concern for wildlife to criticize and/or oppose treaty rights revealing a defensive reaction to maintain their privileges and access to resources. iii Abstract The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) is an influential sport/interest group that has a long history of advocacy and involvement with policies and management related to the conservation of wildlife and outdoor recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • First Nations' Self-Government
    FIRST NATIONS’ SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION: ON THE TRANSFORMATIVE ROLE OF AGONISTIC INDIGENEITY IN CHALLENGING THE CONCEPTUAL LIMITS OF SOVEREIGNTY A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Tanya Andrusieczko © Copyright Tanya Andrusieczko, April 2012. All rights reserved. Permission to Use In presenting this thesis/dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis/dissertation in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis/dissertation work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis/dissertation or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis/dissertation. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis/dissertation in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5A5 OR Dean College of Graduate Studies and Research University of Saskatchewan 107 Administration Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5A2 i Abstract This thesis explores the possibilities of decolonizing the Euro-American political traditions of sovereignty in an effort to re-craft the social contract between the Canadian state and Indigenous peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Colonialism with Hegemonic Culture
    Chapter 1 AIM Use of Popular Images of Indians in Identity Politics They wore beaded belts, sashes, chokers, moccasins, headbands, and lots of Indian jewelry. I thought, what are they trying to prove? There I was, in the swing of things, accepted by the white man, wearing his stylish clothes. Those guys looked ridiculous, all dressed up like Indians. —Russell Means (Where White Men Fear to Tread) As revealed by Russell Means’s recollection of the first time he met American Indian Movement (AIM) members,1 Western notions of cultural identity privilege exotic body images as an index of authen- ticity.2 Although to date it remains a previously unexamined topic, like Amazonian Indians who adorned themselves in Native costume when they partnered up with environmentalists and nongovernmental organizations to further their causes in the 1980s and 1990s,3 AIM members intentionally dressed in Native attire and accouterments when meeting with the media during the closing years of the 1960s and throughout the 1970s. What are best termed their “red-face per- formances” can be understood as a form of declining age-old images of the white man’s Indian because these Native Americans chose to reuse these stereotypes by paying attention to every characteristic popularly associated with these icons and playing on them in creative 15 © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany SP_SCH_Ch01_015-044.indd 15 10/18/12 12:59 PM 16 Fighting Colonialism with Hegemonic Culture ways. In this form of usage, the performer essentially embodies both the stereotype and its critique so integrally that no safe barrier can be erected between the two.4 Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, during the Civil Rights Move- ment and the rise of the Red Power Movement—including the estab- lishment of AIM—popular images of Native Americans as the Noble Anachronism or the Savage Reactionary influenced Natives and non- natives alike in complex ways.
    [Show full text]